[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Bilal Ahmad Bhat And Others vs Chandraker Bharti And Others on 6 February, 2026
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal, Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No: CCP(D) No. 34/2024 in
WP(C) No.1546/2021
c/w
CCP(D) No.36/2024
CCP(D) No. 48/2024
CCP(D) No. 62/2024
CCP(D) No. 63/2024
CCP(D) No. 55/2025
(of Jammu Wing)
a/w
CCP(D) No. 38/2024
in LPA No. 28/2023
c/w
CCP(D) 45/2024
CCP(D) 46/2024
CCP(D) 47/2024
CCP(D) 48/2024
CCP(D) 49/2024
CCP(D) 50/2024
CCP(D) 51/2024
CCP(D) 52/2024
CCP(D) 73/2024
(of Srinagar Wing)
Reserved on: 05.12.2025
Pronounced on: 06. 02.2026
Uploaded on:06. 02.2026
Whether the operative part or full
Judgment is pronounced : Full
1. Bilal Ahmad Bhat and others
a/w connected matters [of
Jammu Wing]
2. Bilal Ahmad Khan and others
a/w connected matters [of
Srinagar Wing]
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Druv
Pant, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Abhirash Sharma, Advocate
CCP(D) No.34/2024 a/w connected petitions. Page 1 of 13
Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Advocate with
Mr. Nasheem Rashid, Advocate &
Ms. Safa, Advocate
(From Jammu Wing)
Mr. Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mariya
Ashraf, Advocate in CCP(D) No.38/2024, Mr.
Z.A.Shah, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hanan,
Advocate in CCP(D) No. 45/2024 to CCP(D)
No. 52/2024,
Mr. Jahangir Ganie, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Qwais Majeed, Advocate in CCP(D)
No.73/2024.
( From Srinagar Wing)
v/s
Chandraker Bharti and others
.... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
(From Jammu Wing)
Mr. Jahangeer Dar, GA
(From Srinagar Wing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
ORDER
PER OSWAL-J
1. These contempt petitions, instituted before both the Jammu and
Srinagar Wings of this Court, allege willful non-compliance of the
judgment dated 24.11.2023 by the respondents-contemnors. The
said judgment, rendered by a Coordinate Bench, concluded a series
of writ petitions and intra-court appeals.
2. These proceedings arise out of two distinct sets of contempt
petitions. The first set involves 151 petitioners, originally parties to
LPASW No. 144/2017 and LPA Nos. 28/2023 to LPA No.
35/2023, who served as Wireless Assistants. The Court directed
their regular appointment as Constables (Operator) against 170
vacant posts, with notional effect from their initial appointment
dates, though without entitlement to back wages.
3. In the other set of contempt petitions, the petitioners were the
private respondents in WP(C) Nos. 1546/2021, 1548/2021,
1684/2021, 1585/2021, and 736/2023. Their number has increased
from 63 to 85. The respondents were directed to consider these
petitioners for engagement as Wireless Assistants against 151
resultant vacant posts, subject to their suitability and their
attainment of the prescribed benchmarks in the recruitment process
pursuant to the Advertisement dated 09.03.2007.
4. At first instance, we shall consider the contempt petitions where the
court directed the appointment of the petitioners as Wireless
Assistants against the 151 resultant vacancies.
5. The essential facts for determining the controversy are that PHQ,
J&K, advertised posts for Constable (Operator) on 09.03.2007. A
select list of 925 candidates against 1,126 vacancies was
subsequently issued on 01.08.2009 in terms of Order No. 2844 of
2009 based on district-level merit, leaving 201 reserved-category
posts vacant. This process was assailed in multiple writ petitions,
wherein the petitioners contended that selection ought to have been
made on the basis of State-level merit. Consequently, on
09.05.2014, the learned Single Judge quashed the district-wise select
list and ordered a fresh selection list based on State-level merit.
6. In compliance with the aforementioned judgment, a fresh select list
of 1,052 candidates was issued based on State-level merit. As a
consequence, 74 vacancies in the reserved category remained
unfilled owing to non-availability of eligible candidates. The
redrawing of the select list further resulted in the exclusion of 229
candidates who had earlier been selected but failed to secure a place
upon application of the revised merit criteria. Out of the said 229
individuals, 40 had either left the service or had expired, while 38
came to be re-selected upon operation of the waiting list.
Consequently, 151 candidates continued to remain ousted from
service.
7. After dismissal of their initial writ petitions challenging the ouster,
the 151 candidates carried the matter further by way of Letters
Patent Appeals assailing the quashing of the district-level select list;
however, the said appeals came to be dismissed on account of delay.
Subsequently, the Government, by way of a one-time exception,
engaged these individuals as Wireless Assistants in terms of Order
dated 10.07.2018 bearing No. 891-Home of 2018. The engagement
was on a consolidated monthly honorarium of ₹25,000, with an
annual increment of 3%.
8. The engagement of the 151 candidates as Wireless Assistants was
assailed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu,
which set aside the order of engagement. The said order of the
Tribunal was thereafter challenged by the ousted candidates by way
of writ petitions before this Court. In the meantime, the 151
candidates also questioned the judgment of the Coordinate Bench by
filing Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
seeking leave to challenge the dismissal of their Letters Patent
Appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the SLPs, condoned
the delay in filing the LPAs, and remanded the matter to this Court
for fresh consideration on merits.
9. Thereafter, the Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the Single
Judge's judgment quashing the selection, together with the writ
petitions challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jammu, were heard together and disposed of by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.11.2023.
The relevant operative portion thereof is extracted hereunder:-
"69. Accordingly, subject to our observations and findings as
discussed, we are not interfering with the common judgment
and order dated 09.05.2014 passed in SWP Nos. 1352 of 2010,
1802 of 2009, 1270 of 2009, 1527 of 2009, 1478 of 2009, 1177
of 2009, 1257 of 2009, 1527 of 2009, 998 of 2013, 777 of 2013,
778 of 2013 and 211 of 2017.
We, however, allow the WP(C)Nos. 1546 of 2021, 1548
of 2021, 1684 of 2021, 1585 of 2021 and 736 of 2023, whereby
the judgment and order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the Ld.
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench in TA
No.62/864/2021 has been challenged, by setting aside the same
with the following directions:-
(i) The appellants in LPASW No.144 of 2017, LPA 28of
2023, LPA 29 of 2023, LPA 30 of 2023, LPA 31 of
2023, LPA 32 of 2023, LPA 33 of 2023, LPA 34 of
2023, LPA 35 of 2023, stated to be numbering 151( one
fifty-one) and who are presently serving as Wireless
Assistants, shall forthwith be appointed as Constables
(Operator) on regular basis by adjusting against the 170
(one seventy) vacant posts of Constables (Operator) and
their appointments shall be given effect notionally from
the date they were initially appointed as Constables
(Operator), without any back wages.
(ii) The services of those persons who are already appointed
as Constables (Operator) after the services of the
appellants were terminated vide order dated 19.01.2017
will remain undisturbed and will be en-bloc senior to the
appellants in the LPAs as the seniority of the Constables
(Operator) should be based on the state level merit list
which was prepared in terms of the direction issued by
the Ld. Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order
dated 09.05.2014 in SWP No. 1352 of 2010 and other
writ petitions, as this would truly reflect the comparative
merit of the candidates, irrespective of the fact that they
may be appointed on different dates and in different
districts.
(iii) In order to avoid any such similar future litigation, the
official respondents should clarify the status/position of
the "Constables (Operator) qua the "Constable" as
provided in the J&K Police Rules, 1960.
(iv) The private respondents in WP(C) Nos. 1546 of 2021,
1548 of 2021, 1684 of 2021, 1585 of 2021 and 736 of
2023, who have continued to pursue their claim till now,
stated to be numbering 63 (sixty-six), shall be appointed
as Wireless Assistants against the resultant 151 (one
fifty-one) vacant posts of Wireless Assistants, subject to
their suitability and on attaining the benchmark in terms
of the performance in the recruitment process pursuant to
the advertisement dated 09.03.2007, as may be decided
by the appointing authority, as observed above, within a
period of one month from today."
10.Pursuant to the directions contained in paragraph (iv) of the
operative part of the judgment, the writ petitioners initially
numbering 63 and later increased to 85 by virtue of subsequent
orders were required to be appointed as Wireless Assistants against
the 151 resultant vacancies. Such appointments were subject to their
suitability and the attainment of prescribed performance benchmarks
in the recruitment process, initiated pursuant to Advertisement dated
09.03.2007, as determined by the appointing authority.
11.The respondents have filed a statement of facts asserting that in
compliance with the directions contained in paragraph (iv) of the
judgment, the claims of all 85 writ petitioners were duly considered.
It is, however, stated that the petitioners were found unsuitable for
appointment as Wireless Assistants for various reasons.
Consequently, vide PHQ Order No. 4166 of 2025 dated 16.10.2025,
the claims of the petitioners were rejected as being devoid of merit.
12.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that although the
Coordinate Bench, in paragraph 68 of the judgment ibid, recorded
that the petitioners did not figure either in the district-level or the
State-level merit lists, it nevertheless issued a direction to the
respondents to consider their cases. It was further contended that
had the Court intended a strict application of the State-level merit
benchmark, there would have been no occasion to direct
consideration of the petitioners' cases, particularly when they
admittedly did not figure in the merit lists prepared under the
original selection process.
13.Per contra, learned Senior A.A.G., Mrs. Monika Kohli, submitted
that all 85 petitioners belonged either to the Open Merit (OM) or
Resident of Backward Area (RBA) categories and that none of them
had secured the requisite cut-off marks. It was stated by her that the
prescribed cut-off was 81 marks for the OM category and 62 marks
for the RBA category. She further contended that apart from these
85 petitioners, there are as many as 1,075 non-selected candidates in
the Open Merit category who possess higher merit than Shri Rub
Nawaz (Roll No. 2725). Likewise, in the RBA category, 116
candidates who also did not figure in the final select list have higher
merit than Shri Mohd. Shareef Mir (Roll No. 2736).
14.Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we have
minutely examined the material on record.
15.The primary contention of the 85 petitioners is that they are entitled
to appointment as Wireless Assistants against the 151 available
vacancies, subject to their fulfilling the suitability and performance
benchmarks prescribed under the Advertisement dated 09.03.2007.
It is contended that had the Court intended a strict application of the
State-level merit benchmark, there would have been no occasion for
the Coordinate Bench to direct consideration of the original 63
candidates, who admittedly did not figure either in the district-level
or the State-level merit lists. The petitioners further submit that
although such candidates would not ordinarily be eligible, a
conscious and specific exception was carved out by the Coordinate
Bench in view of the availability of sufficient vacancies and the fact
that these candidates had litigated their grievance before the Central
Administrative Tribunal.
16.The respondents rely exclusively upon direction (iv) of the judgment
to contend that the expression 'benchmark in terms of performance'
necessarily refers to the merit list prepared on a State-level basis.
17.We are conscious of the restricted scope of our contempt
jurisdiction. The Court is required to remain strictly within the 'four
corners of the judgment and cannot expand or diminish its mandate
through interpretation. Moreover, the operative part of the judgment
must not be read in isolation; it must be construed as a whole to
ensure its true intent and purpose are not defeated. Compliance must
be assessed by reading the judgment in its entirety, rather than
through a fragmented or isolated approach.
18. It would, therefore, be apposite to extract paragraph 68 of the
judgment, which reads as under:-
"68. We have been informed that the number of private
respondents/original applicants in the batch of the
applications challenging the appointment of the appellants
as Wireless Assistants, which were decided by the Ld.
Administrative Tribunal petitions, who are pursuing their
cause is 63. They were also candidates who had taken part
in the recruitment process conducted in terms of the
advertisement issued on 09.03.2007 but could not make it
either in the merit list prepared at the district level or state
level. Though, under normal circumstances, they cannot be
considered for appointment in terms of merit, and they had
not served in any capacity earlier, as the appellants, since,
there are sufficient vacancies in the post of Wireless
Assistants, these 63 candidates can be considered for
appointment as they had successfully pursued their claim
before the Ld. CAT. We are also of the view as also contended
by them that since they had also taken part in the recruitment
process, their case can be considered. We, accordingly, are of
the view that their cases can be considered for engagement as
Wireless Assistants against the existing vacancies of Wireless
Assistants, if they are found to be fulfilling the minimum
standard required or the benchmark for appointment and if they
so given appointment, their services shall stand regularized on
completion of 10 years as per the condition stipulated at the
time of creation of the 151 posts of Wireless Assistants."
19.In paragraph 68 of the judgment, the Coordinate Bench recorded
that the petitioners, initially numbering 63 and subsequently
increased to 85, had participated in the recruitment process pursuant
to the advertisement dated 09.03.2007 but had failed to secure a
place either in the district-level or the State-level merit lists. The
Bench observed that although they would not ordinarily be eligible
for appointment on the basis of merit, particularly as they had no
prior service unlike the other ousted candidates; they nevertheless
deserved consideration in view of the fact that they had successfully
litigated their claims before the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal.
20.The Coordinate Bench thereafter directed the respondents to
consider the petitioners for engagement as Wireless Assistants
against the available vacancies, subject to their satisfying the
minimum standards or benchmarks prescribed for such appointment.
The Court further observed that, upon their appointment, the
services of the petitioners would be liable to be regularized on
completion of ten years, in accordance with the terms and conditions
stipulated at the time the 151 posts of Wireless Assistants were
created. The judgment has attained finality, inasmuch as the Special
Leave Petition preferred against it was dismissed. The Review
Petition filed by the respondents seeking review of the dismissal of
the SLP was also rejected, thereby rendering the original mandate
absolute.
21.The direction (iv) contained in para No.69 of the judgment dated
24.11.2023 is required to be read in conjunction with paragraph 68
thereof, the findings recorded therein constituting the very
substratum of the final direction. The respondents were, thus,
obligated to assess the suitability of the petitioners on the basis of
the prescribed benchmarks and to engage them if they satisfied the
minimum standards required for appointment. It is evident that the
expressions 'minimum standard' or 'benchmark' denote the
threshold of suitability for the post and cannot be equated with
comparative merit in the overall recruitment process.
22.Consequently, while failure to satisfy the basic eligibility conditions
or the prescribed minimum standards may justify a refusal to
engage, mere non-placement in the merit lists cannot, by itself,
operate to disentitle the petitioners. The Coordinate Bench was fully
conscious of the merit position of the petitioners and,
notwithstanding the same, issued a specific direction for their
engagement as Wireless Assistants, subject only to their suitability.
The Coordinate Bench, with full knowledge that the petitioners did
not figure either in the State-wise or district-wise merit lists,
consciously directed the respondents to consider their claims for
engagement. The matter has since attained finality. By once again
raising the issue of the petitioners' lack of merit, the respondents
have, in effect, sought to reopen an issue that already stands
adjudicated by the Court. Such a course of action is legally
impermissible and amounts to an attempt to circumvent the judicial
mandate.
23.The contention that other candidates with higher merit might claim
similar rights is misconceived. The directions of the Coordinate
Bench were restricted to those specific candidates who were
pursuing their claims in court. This judicial remedy is exclusive to
the petitioners and cannot be extended to individuals who were not
parties to the litigation before the learned Tribunal.
24.We find that Order No. 4166 of 2025 dated 16.10.2025 is not in
consonance with the directions issued in the judgment dated
24.11.2023, insofar as the first set of contempt petitions is
concerned. Consequently, the statement of facts filed by the
respondents, to the extent it is founded upon the said order dated
16.10.2025, is hereby rejected.
25.With regard to the second set of contempt petitions, the compliance
report filed by respondent No. 1 indicates that the Home Department
examined the proposal forwarded by PHQ, J&K, vide
communication dated 22.09.2025. Taking note of the binding nature
of the judgment and the practical constraint arising from the non-
availability of substantive vacancies, the Home Department found
the creation of 145 supernumerary posts of Constables (Operator) to
be legally permissible and administratively feasible. This course of
action ensures compliance with the judgment without disturbing the
existing cadre strength or the appointments already made.
Consequently, the proposal was forwarded to the Finance
Department on 09.10.2025 seeking concurrence for creation of the
said posts with retrospective effect from 01.07.2010.
26.Vide order dated 14.11.2025, this Court had taken note of the
submissions of Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, to the effect that appointment orders in
respect of the petitioners have been issued appointing them as
Constables (Operator), however, they have been permitted to join
only as Wireless Assistants. Unless the supernumerary posts of
Constables (Operator) are not created and the petitioners are given
notional retrospective effect to their appointment as Constables
(Operator) in terms of direction No.(i) of the LPA Bench, it cannot
be stated that the said direction stands complied with.
27.In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view
that judgment dated 24.11.2023 has not been complied in its entirety
in respect of the remaining petitioners as well.
28.Viewed thus, the respondents are directed to file a fresh statement of
facts, strictly in accordance with the basic judgment dated
24.11.2023, on or before the next date of hearing. In the event of
failure to do so, the respondents shall remain personally present
before this Court for further proceedings.
29.List all these contempt petitions again on 27.03.2026.
30.Registry to place copy of this order on each batch of the contempt
petitions.
(Sanjay Dhar) (Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge Judge
Jammu
06 .02.2026
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes/No.
Whether order is reportable? Yes/No.
MADAN LAL VERMA
2026.02.06 11:00
CCP(D) No.34/2024 a/w connected petitions.
integrity of this document
